See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8912804

A psychometric analysis of the Self-

Regulation Questionnaire

Article in Addictive Behaviors · March 2004

DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.001 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

99 3,073

3 authors, including:

Susan E Collins
University of Washington - Harborview Medical Center
68 PUBLICATIONS 1,440 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Susan E Collins on 24 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253 – 260

A psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire

Kate B. Carey*, Dan J. Neal, Susan E. Collins
Department of Psychology, Center for Health and Behavior, Syracuse University,
430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244-2340, USA

Abstract

The self-regulation questionnaire (SRQ) is a 63-item instrument designed to measure the

generalized ability to regulate behavior so as to achieve desired future outcomes. This study extended
previous psychometric evaluations of the SRQ by determining the factor structure and internal
consistency of the SRQ and providing convergent and discriminant evidence for its validity.
Participants were undergraduates (N = 391; 55% women) from two consecutive semesters (n1 = 208;
n2 = 183). A single-factor solution emerged (31 items), invariant across gender and semester. These
items were combined to create a short version of the SRQ (SSRQ; a=.92), which was highly correlated
with the original SRQ (r=.96). Unrelated to demographic variables and alcohol use, the SSRQ
correlated significantly with alcohol-related problems. The association between the SSRQ and
problems remained even after controlling for social desirability and alcohol consumption. These
results support the use of the SSRQ in young adult samples. Further psychometric evaluation of the
SSRQ is necessary, however, to further establish its validity and utility as a measure of generalized
self-regulation capacity.
D 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Psychometric analysis; Self-regulation skills; Goal-directed behavior

1. Introduction

Self-regulation skills subsume goal-directed behavior, and allow a person to delay

gratification in the short term to achieve desired outcomes in the future. Carver and
Scheier (1982) and Kanfer (1970) have articulated alternate yet compatible conceptualiza-
tions of a three-step theory of self-regulation. More recently, Miller and Brown (1991)

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-315-443-2706; fax: +1-315-443-4123.

E-mail address: kcarey@syr.edu (K.B. Carey).

0306-4603/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.001
254 K.B. Carey et al. / Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253–260

elaborated on self-regulation theory by expanding the number of processes involved to

seven. Implicit in all three conceptualizations is the idea that deficits in any one stage may
result in self-regulation difficulties.
Empirical evidence supports the relevance of generalized self-regulation skills to substance
use. For example, Carey, Carey, Carnrike, and Meisler (1990) reported a significant
relationship between drinking status and a measure of self-control. Similarly, infrequent
substance users had higher scores on a self-regulation scale compared to frequent users
(Lopez-Torrecillas, Garcia, Garcia, Izquierdo, & Sanchez-Barrera, 2000). Brown, Miller, and
Lewandowski (1999) report the results of several studies that demonstrate the negative
relationship between self-regulation and alcohol use and problems. Indeed, low self-
regulation skills appear to be a risk factor for adolescent alcohol abuse (Chassin & DeLucia,
1996). Thus, multiple sources of evidence lend support to the application of self-regulation
theory to substance use behavior.
Brown et al. (1999) described the development of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire
(SRQ), a 63-item instrument that assesses the seven dimensions of self-regulation as
articulated by Miller and Brown (1991). The SRQ is internally consistent (a=.91) and
temporally stable over 2 days, r(83)=.94. However, information is limited on some important
aspects of the validity of the SRQ. Therefore, this study extended the psychometric evaluation
of the SRQ by evaluating the factor structure of the SRQ and the internal consistency of the
resultant factor(s), and by presenting evidence for both convergent and discriminant validity.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 391 undergraduate students from two consecutive semesters in the same
academic year (n1 = 208; n2 = 183). Participants with missing data were deleted on a casewise
basis, yielding a final sample (n = 377) that was predominantly female (55%), white (82%),
and freshmen (66%), and ranged in age from 17 to 24 (M = 18.7, S.D. = 1.0).

2.2. Measures and procedure

The Personal Information Questionnaire assessed demographic variables. The Daily

Drinking Behavior Questionnaire assessed binge episodes (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport,
& Rimm, 1995), typical drinks per week, and peak drinks per week in the last month. The
Frequency-Quantity Questionnaire assessed the typical and peak amounts consumed, and
time spent drinking, on single occasions in the past month, yielding estimates for typical BAL
and peak BAL. Alcohol-related problems were assessed using the Rutgers Alcohol Problem
Index (RAPI; White & Labouvie, 1989). Self-regulation was assessed using the Self-
Regulation Questionnaire (Brown et al., 1999). Social desirability was assessed using the
Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). Only the
participants from the fall semester completed the MCSDS.
 K.B. Carey et al. / Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253–260 255

Participants convened in small groups and provided written consent before filling out the
questionnaire packet. The assessment sessions lasted approximately one hour.

3. Results

Means, standard deviations, and gender comparisons for men and women on the alcohol-
related variables are presented in Table 1.
A principal factor analysis, with estimates for the communalities obtained using the
squared multiple correlation coefficients, was computed on the 63 SRQ items. Additional
analyses not reported here indicated that the factor structure did not differ significantly across
gender or semester. Eigenvalues for the first seven extracted factors were 11.4, 3.3, 1.9, 1.7,
1.3, 1.2, and 1.0. The seven rationally derived factors did not emerge in any of the solutions
considered. A single-factor solution was chosen based on examination of the scree plot, and
because cross loading of items onto factors made multiple factor solutions difficult to
interpret. The single-factor solution was rotated to improve interpretability; 31 items loaded
on the rotated first factor at 0.4 or greater (see Table 2). The single factor accounted for 43%
of the total variance.
The 31 items that loaded on the rotated first factor were separated from the original items
and items with negative loadings were reverse scored. Item-total correlations ranged from .42
to .72. Each item was also individually correlated with the sum of all items except itself; these
correlations ranged from .38 to .69. The overall alpha for the 31 items was .92. Therefore, the
31 items were then summed to create a new measure, the Short SRQ (SSRQ; M = 116.6,
S.D. = 15.0, range 63–154). The correlation between the full SRQ and the SSRQ was r=.96.
The SSRQ total score was compared across the following demographics: semester, age,
gender, class standing, ethnicity, residence, and Greek membership. Significant differences
emerged between participants from the spring semester (M = 119.8, S.D. = 14.3) and the fall

Table 1
Gender differences on alcohol-related variables
Men Women F
M S.D. M S.D.
Drinks per week 15.9 14.0 9.4 7.3 34.16**
Peak drinks per week 24.6 20.3 14.3 11.4 38.54**
Typical consumption 4.8 3.5 3.3 2.2 24.56**
Peak consumption 9.7 6.2 6.4 4.1 39.38**
Typical BAL 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.06 3.72
Peak BAL 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.12 1.43
Binge episodes 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.3 0.29
RAPI 7.5 7.3 5.6 5.0 9.50*
BAL = blood alcohol level; RAPI = Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index.
* P < .01.
** P < .001.
256 K.B. Carey et al. / Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253–260

Table 2
Factor loadings on the first rotated factor
Item Item text Factor 1
40 I have trouble making plans to help me reach goals 0.72
33 I have a hard time setting goals for myself 0.68
47 Once I have a goal, I can usually plan how to reach it 0.64
62 I give up quickly 0.64
42 I set goals for myself and keep track of my progress 0.63
35 When I’m trying to change something, I pay attention to how I’m doing 0.61
8 I don’t notice the effects of my actions until it’s too late 0.60
45 I tend to keep doing the same thing, even when it doesn’t work 0.58
30 I have personal standards, and try to live up to them 0.58
6 I get easily distracted from my plans 0.57
20 I have trouble following through with things once I’ve made up my mind to do something 0.55
34 I have a lot of willpower 0.54
11 I’m able to accomplish goals I set for myself 0.54
49 If I make a resolution to change something, I pay a lot of attention to how I’m doing 0.54
12 I put off making decisions 0.54
43 Most of the time I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing 0.52
21 I don’t seem to learn from my mistakes 0.52
18 If I wanted to change, I am confident that I could do it 0.51
1 I usually keep track of my progress toward my goals 0.51
54 I usually think before I act 0.50
32 As soon as I see a problem or challenge, I start looking for possible solutions 0.50
19 When it comes to deciding about a change, I feel overwhelmed by the choices 0.50
57 I learn from my mistakes 0.50
41 I am able to resist temptation 0.48
50 Often I don’t notice what I’m doing until someone calls it to my attention 0.47
5 I have trouble making up my mind about things 0.46
58 I know how I want to be 0.45
28 I usually only have to make a mistake one time in order to learn from it 0.44
27 I can stick to a plan that is working well 0.42
46 I can usually find several different possibilities when I want to change something 0.41
15 It’s hard for me to notice when I’ve had enough (alcohol, food, sweets) 0.40
13 I have so many plans that it’s hard for me to focus on any one of them 0.39
61 Before making a decision, I consider what is likely to happen if I do one thing or another 0.39
38 As soon as I see things aren’t going right I want to do something about it 0.39
4 I doubt I could change even if I wanted to 0.39
55 Little problems or distractions throw me off course. 0.38
14 I change the way I do things when I see a problem with how things are going 0.38
37 I don’t care if I’m different from most people 0.37
48 I have rules that I stick by no matter what 0.37
26 I can come up with lots of ways to change, but it’s hard for me to decide which one to use 0.35
22 I’m usually careful not to overdo it when working/eating/drinking 0.33
52 Usually I see the need to change before others do 0.32
39 There is usually more than one way to accomplish something 0.31
16 I think a lot about what other people think of me 0.30
51 I think a lot about how I’m doing 0.28
23 I tend to compare myself with other people 0.28
 K.B. Carey et al. / Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253–260 257

Table 2 (continued )
Item Item text Factor 1
10 It’s hard for me to see anything helpful about changing my ways 0.27
44 I try to be like people around me 0.27
17 I am willing to consider other ways of doing things 0.26
7 I reward myself for progress made toward my goals 0.23
25 I have sought out advice or information about changing 0.23
53 I’m good at finding different ways to get what I want 0.23
3 Others tell me that I keep on with things too long 0.19
29 I don’t learn well from punishment 0.18
60 I call in others for help when I need it 0.18
36 I usually judge what I’m doing by the consequences of my actions 0.17
63 I usually decide to change and hope for the best 0.10
59 It bothers me when things aren’t the way I want them 0.08
2 My behavior is not that different from other people’s 0.03
31 I am set in my ways 0.03
56 I feel bad when I don’t meet my goals 0.03
24 I enjoy a routine, and like things to stay the same 0.02
9 My behavior is similar to that of my friends 0.01

semester (M = 113.7, S.D. = 15.1) [t(375) = 3.98, P < .0001]. No differences in SSRQ scores
were observed as a function of the other demographic variables after controlling for semester
differences. Social desirability was significantly correlated with scores on the SSRQ
[r(194)=.47, P < .0001] for the subset of participants from the fall semester.
No significant correlations between the SSRQ and the seven alcohol use measures were
observed; however, higher SSRQ scores were associated with lower RAPI scores (r = .25,
P < .0001). To evaluate the independent contribution of the SSRQ to the prediction of
alcohol problems, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with the RAPI as the
dependent variable and gender, drinks per week, and the SSRQ as carriers. A natural log
transform with linear translation parameters of 6.54 and 2.78 were used on drinks per week
and the RAPI, respectively. All predictor variables were centered (e.g., Aiken & West,
1991). First, RAPI scores were regressed on gender and drinks per week [R2=.46,
F(2,374) = 158.25, P < .0001]. Second, the SSRQ was added as a predictor, which improved
model fit [R2=.50, inc. R2=.04, F(1,373) = 33.60, P < .0001]. Third, SSRQ  Gender and
SSRQ  Drinks Per Week interaction terms were added to the model, which did not
improve on the model fit [R2=.51, inc. R2=.01, F(2,371) = 2.10, ns]. Fourth, gender,
SSRQ  Gender, and SSRQ  Drinks Per Week were not jointly significant
[ F(3,371) = 1.44, ns] and were subsequently dropped from the model. The final model
included SSRQ and drinks per week and accounted for 50% of the variance in RAPI
scores. Drinks per week was positively associated with RAPI scores, whereas SSRQ was
negatively associated with RAPI scores.
A second hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with the data from the 194
participants for whom social desirability data were available. First, transformed RAPI scores
were regressed on gender and transformed drinks per week [R2=.43, F(2,191) = 72.30,
P < .0001]. Second, social desirability was added as a predictor, which improved model fit
258 K.B. Carey et al. / Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253–260

[R2=.48, inc. R2=.05, F(1,190) = 18.58, P < .0001]. Third, the SSRQ was added as a predictor,
which improved model fit [R2=.52, inc. R2=.04, F(1,189) = 15.45, P < .0001]. Fourth,
SSRQ  Gender, SSRQ  Drinks Per Week, SSRQ  Social Desirability, and Social Desir-
ability  Gender interaction terms were added to the model, which did not improve on the
model fit [R2=.54, inc. R2=.02, F(4,185) = 1.77, ns]. Fifth, since gender and all interaction
terms were not jointly significant [ F(5,185) = 1.42, ns], they were dropped from the model.
The final model accounted for 52% of the variance in RAPI scores. Drinks per week was
positively associated with RAPI scores, whereas SSRQ and social desirability were both
negatively associated with RAPI scores.

4. Discussion

Although designed to have seven factors, our analyses indicate that the 63-item SRQ scale
has a single factor structure on which 31 items load significantly. Thus, there is little
empirical support for the rationally derived seven-factor solution reported by Brown et al.
(1999). The 31-item SSRQ is internally consistent, it correlates strongly with the original
scale, and its factor structure replicates across groups defined by gender and semester of
recruitment. Because respondent burden is reduced through use of the SSRQ, the short
version appears to be a good alternative to the full scale.
The findings of this study support the construct validity of the SSRQ. The SSRQ scores are
equivalent across demographic variables, including age, gender, ethnicity, class standing,
residence, and membership in a fraternity or sorority. However, the significant mean
difference observed between participants from fall and spring semesters is difficult to
interpret. The moderate correlations of the SSRQ with social desirability scores deserve
consideration in future research. Some portion of the variance in SSRQ scores may be
attributed to a social desirability response bias; however, it is also plausible that the trait of
social desirability covaries with self-regulation abilities. Investigators must evaluate these
relationships to avoid potential confounds.
In this sample the SSRQ was not related to any of the alcohol consumption variables, a
result that is partially inconsistent with previous research. Brown et al. (1999) found that
binge drinkers tended to show lower self-regulation scores compared to nonbinge drinkers,
and that persons with low self-regulation scores tended to drink heavier and more frequently
than persons with high self-regulation scores. However, these relationships were potentially
moderated by gender (Brown et al., 1999). Although Patock-Peckham, Cheon, Balhorn, and
Nagoshi (2001) also found the relationship between problems and self-regulation to vary by
gender, our findings revealed an inverse relationship that was identical for men and women.
Although sampling and measurement were similar in these studies, regional differences
cannot be ruled out, nor can we be sure that all variables relevant to elucidating gender-based
patterns have been identified.
The observation that a person variable such as self-regulation may be related to
substance-related problems but not use has precedent in other studies. For example,
Nagoshi (1999) reported that impaired control over alcohol use predicted alcohol-related
 K.B. Carey et al. / Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253–260 259

problems but not consumption. In addition, Simons and Carey (2002) observed relation-
ships between affect regulation and marijuana-related problems, but not with marijuana use.
Taken together, this pattern of findings suggests that self-regulation capacity may not
directly influence the quantity of alcohol consumed, but rather the situations in which
students choose to drink.
Overall, our results provide support for the reliability and validity of the SSRQ in
young adults. The SSRQ is a single-factor scale that is substantially shorter than the
original. It is unrelated to any of the demographic variables collected in this study, and
also unrelated to alcohol consumption. However, as expected, the SSRQ does predict
alcohol-related problems. Given that the relationship between alcohol-related problems
and the SSRQ is independent of social desirability, the potential utility of the SSRQ
appears to be strong.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by NIAAA grant R01 AA 12518 to Kate B. Carey.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R., & Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The self-regulation questionnaire. In L. VandeCreek,
& T. L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A sourcebook, vol. 17 ( pp. 281 – 292). Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.
Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., Carnrike Jr., C. L. M., & Meisler, A. W. (1990). Learned resourcefulness, drinking, and
smoking in young adults. Journal of Psychology, 124, 391 – 395.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality—Social,
clinical and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111 – 135.
Chassin, L., & DeLucia, C. (1996). Drinking during adolescence. Alcohol Health and Research World, 20,
175 – 180.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.
Kanfer, F. H. (1970). Self-regulation: Research, issues, and speculation. In C. Neuringer, & J. L. Michael (Eds.),
Behavior modification in clinical psychology ( pp. 178 – 220). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lopez-Torrecillas, F., Garcia, J. F. G., Garcia, M. P., Izquierdo, D. G., & Sanchez-Barrera, M. B. (2000). Variables
modulating stress and coping that discriminate drug consumers from low or nondrug consumers. Addictive
Behaviors, 25, 161 – 165.
Miller, W. R., & Brown, J. M. (1991). Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the prevention and treatment of
addictive behaviors. In N. Heather, W. R. Miller, & J. Greely (Eds.), Self-control and the addictive behaviours
( pp. 3 – 79). Sydney: Maxwell Macmillan.
Nagoshi, C. T. (1999). Perceived control of drinking and other predictors of alcohol use and problems in a college
student sample. Addiction Research, 7, 291 – 306.
Patock-Peckham, J. A., Cheong, J. W., Balhorn, M. E., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2001). A social learning perspective: A
model of parenting styles, self-regulation, perceived drinking control, and alcohol use and problems. Alcohol-
ism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 1284 – 1292.
260 K.B. Carey et al. / Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004) 253–260

Simons, J. S., & Carey, K. B. (2002). Risk and vulnerability for marijuana use problems: The role of affect
dysregulation. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 72 – 75.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Rimm, E. B. (1995). A gender specific measure of binge drinking
among college students. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 982 – 985.
White, H. R., & Labouvie, E. W. (1989). Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 50, 30 – 37.

View publication stats